Search

Objective: This study investigated how the number of images collected for digital measurements in dentistry affects accuracy compared with traditional methods. Methods: A Frasaco maxillary model was scanned using a SHINING 3D AutoScan-DS-MIX dental 3D scanner to create an STL file. The maxilla was molded 10 times using polyvinyl siloxane (Zhermack Elite HD+) to produce plaster models, which were scanned with the same reference scanner to generate 10 STL files. The Frasaco model was scanned 10 times, capturing images in intervals of 800–1000, 1000–1200, and 1200–1500 using a 3Shape TRIOS 3 intraoral scanner, creating additional STL files. These were analyzed with reverse engineering software. Results: The most accurate measurements were obtained using 1200–1500 images. Conventional impression techniques performed significantly worse. There was a significant difference between the groups Digital 1200–1500 and Plaster (p < 0.001) and between Digital 800–1000 and Plaster (p = 0.007). No significant difference was found when the digital groups were compared among themselves. There was also no significant difference between the Plaster and Digital 1000–1200 groups. To compare precision values that were normally distributed across three or more methods, a one-way ANOVA was used. Trueness values that were not normally distributed with three or more methods were compared employing the Kruskal–Wallis test. Conclusions: Different image counts affect digital measurement accuracy. The most accurate measurements were obtained when collecting 1200–1500 images. Conventional impression techniques were shown to perform significantly worse than digital impression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to explore and identify the factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning in implant dentistry, with a specific focus on scan bodies (ISBs). Methods: Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, this study conducted a thorough electronic search across MedLine, PubMed, and Scopus to identify relevant studies. Articles were screened based on titles, abstracts, and full texts for relevance. The Robins I tool assessed the risk of bias in various study types. Data extraction occurred based on predetermined parameters for studying specimens and assessing outcomes. Results: 16 studies met the specified criteria and were consequently included in the systematic review. Due to variations in variables and methods across the selected studies, statistical comparison of results was not feasible. Therefore, a descriptive review approach was chosen, acknowledging the substantial heterogeneity in the reviewed literature. Conclusions: The precision of virtual scan results is contingent upon diverse characteristics of ISBs and implants. These factors encompass their placement within the dental arch, structural design, shape, material composition, color, and the manufacturing system, all of which contribute to scan accuracy. Additionally, considerations such as the intraoral scanner (IOS) type, scanning technique, use of scan aids, inter-implant distance, scan span, and the number of implants warrant evaluation. In the context of capturing implant positions, intraoral scanning with ISBs demonstrates comparable accuracy to traditional impression methods, particularly in single and short-span scenarios. However, the existing data lacks sufficient information on in vivo applications to formulate clinical recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]